Confused Evolutionist

There's a basic problem with Darwinian evolution as it stands today. Its been 'preached' as though it were fact yet with so many of its variations comes the revelation that there really is a vast chasm of disagreement within the scientific community when it comes to origins.
For example; one of those 'nuances' that I refer to are the opinions held by many scientists that life on this planet may have been planted here rather than forming naturally over 4.5 billion years.
The Search for Extra Terrestrial Intelligence (SETI) vigil for ET may sound strange if you haven't heard of it but one of its purposes is to find out how life may have originated on the earth.

"In a very real sense this search for extraterrestrial intelligence is a search for a cosmic context for mankind, a search for who we are, where we have come from, and what possibilities there are for our future." - Carl Sagan

Just a few miles up the road from me (Hat Creek) is a radio telescope array--listening for the elusive ET. The SETI 'syndrome' began in 1960 when a scientist calculated the possibilities of how many planets may exist in the universe supporting intelligent life.

The origin of life on planet earth remains a mystery because as one scientist said,

"We don't really know how life originated on this planet. There have been a variety of experiments that tell us some possible roads, but we remain in substantial ignorance. That said, I think what we're looking for is some kind of molecule that is simple enough that it can be made by physical processes on the young Earth, yet complicated enough that it can take charge of making more of itself. That, I think, is the moment when we cross that great divide and start moving toward something that most people would recognize as living." - Paleontologist Andrew Knoll, professor of biology at Harvard and author of Life on a Young Planet: The First Three Billion Years of Life.

For more eye opening stuff on SETI see what Michael Crichton said in a lecture at the California Institute of Technology in Pasadena, CA. (Aliens Cause Global Warming)



One of the other nuances is the answer to the question: What really killed the dinosaurs?
From the 1980's scientists thought they'd found the answer. They called it the 'impact theory.'

The theory says a "10km-wide meteorite had smashed into the Yucatan peninsula in Mexico, causing worldwide forest fires, tsunamis several kilometers high, and an 'impact winter' - in which dust blocked out the sun for months or years. It was thought that the dinosaurs were blasted, roasted and frozen to death, in that order."*

Today that theory is being challenged as new evidence is uncovered. Scientists have uncovered plenty of evidence that there was not one, but a number of extinction level events (ELE), even larger than the impact that created the KT boundary. Each would have interrupted the billions of years many scientists claimed would be required for a traditional evolution model proposed so far.
Dr. Knoll summed up the scientific view of origins when he said, "…we remain in substantial ignorance."


Despite the discord within the ranks of evolutionists, they present a united front when it comes to allowing the viable evidence for the theory Intelligent Design to even be considered.

I guess that free thinking is limited to those who completely close their minds to the possibility of a creator--yet isn't it they who say Christians are closed minded? I will close with what some evolutionists **themselves say about the fossil record:

"Despite the bright promise that paleontology provides a means of 'seeing' evolution, it has presented some nasty difficulties for evolutionists, the most notorious of which is the presence of 'gaps' in the fossil record. Evolution requires intermediate forms between species and paleontology does not provide them ..." - David B. Kitts, PhD (Zoology) Head Curator, Dept of Geology, Stoval Museum Evolution, vol 28, Sep 1974, p 467

"The curious thing is that there is a consistency about the fossilgaps; the fossils are missing in all the important places." Francis Hitching The Neck of the Giraffe or Where Darwin Went Wrong Penguin Books, 1982, p.19

"The absence of fossil evidence for intermediary stages between major transitions in organic design, indeed our inability, even in our imagination, to construct functional intermediates in many cases, has been a persistent and nagging problem for gradualistic accounts of evolution." Stephen Jay Gould, Prof of Geology and Paleontology, Harvard University "Is a new general theory of evolution emerging?" Paleobiology, vol 6, January 1980, p. 127

"...Yet Gould and the American Museum people are hard to contradict when they say there are no transitional fossils ... I will lay it on the line, there is not one such fossil for which one could make a watertight argument." Dr. Colin Patterson, Senior Paleontologist, British Museum of Natural History, London As quoted by: L. D. Sunderland Darwin's Enigma: Fossils and Other Problems 4th edition, Master Books, 1988, p. 89
__________________

**Thanks to Ted Holden for the quotes

Partial Birth Abortion--aborted

This National Geographic photo of a 7 month old fetus is part of an amazing documentary "In The Womb." It shows the different stages of development with amazing 3D and 4D ultrasound images. The documentary reveals the behavior of children in the womb sucking thier thumbs, blinking, yawning and smiling--going through a range of emotions.
Last week's decision by the Supreme Court to put an end to the gruesome practice of 'partial birth abortion' (with some exceptions). This documentary is enlightening and worth seeing.

Converted Abortion Provider Reveals The Truth

Abortion: A way "to start immediately to eliminate the barely educated, unhealthy and poor segment of our country." - Ron Weddington, council for Norma McCorvey, (also known as Jane Roe), in a letter (see page 12 of the report) to President (elect) Clinton to push for the marketing of abortion pill (RU-486). Ron Weddington's wife Sarah, was an attorney for legal abortion rights in the 1973 Roe v. Wade case. Click to see the full text of Ron Weddingtons letters to President (elect) Bill Clintion.
Three days after Bill Clinton took office he ordered the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and the FDA to coordinate the marketing of RU-486.

Did you really think abortion was all about a woman's right to choose? At least in the mind of Ron Weddington it's actually a eugenics program that in the end determines what life is worthy to live--ala the Nazi eugenics program. Read again Ron Weddington's statement:


What about the things that are told to women who are going to an abortion clinic? Carole Everett, former abortion clinic(s) owner said, “I cannot tell you one thing that happens in an abortion clinic that is not a lie.”

Click on the Title bar to read an interview with Carole Everett...Be aware there are some graphic and startling revelations in this question and answer session.

Abortion factoids:

• Since Roe v Wade (1/22/73) over 50 million abortions have taken place in the US.


• An average of 4,023 abortions are performed every day in the US.


• More unborn babies aborted than twice the current population of Australia.


• More unborn babies aborted every day than all of the Americans killed in the entire Iraqi war.


• An unborn child is aborted on average every 21 seconds, 24 hours a day, seven days a week--all in the name of a woman's right to choose...

Abortion is out of control in the United States of America.

Intelligent Design vs Evolution -- again

Professors at Southern Methodist University (SMU) were out in protest against the visit of Intelligent Design (ID) Scientists from Discovery who were invited to speak. As usual, with people who feel threatened, they began hurling insults at ID theorists. The conference will take place on the SMU campus' McFarlin Auditorium April 13 and 14th. [Ticket information] Isn't it ironic that at a former Christian university an open discussion about ID would be met with such blatant hostility? Evolution is taught as fact and even used in commercials--

What are they so afraid of?

Click on the Geico 'caveman to check out his crib. You can 'click' your way around .

Christ's Resurrection and You

Jesus Christ is the only leader of any religion, not to mention the only man in all of history that has defeated death.
The only sign of His remains is this empty tomb in Jerusalem. Because He died and rose again, He has given the ability to (whosever will) obtain everlasting life. This life is in Him and available to all.
The Bible says it this way:
(1 John 5:11, 12) "And this is the testimony: God has given us eternal life, and this life is in his Son. He who has the Son has life; he who does not have the Son of God does not have life." Clear and straightforward, isn't it?

No amount of skepticism (and I'm skeptical by nature) keeps me from knowing Christ and that never ending life He's given me. John said that his very reason for writing is so that you could know. "I write these things to you who believe in the name of the Son of God so that you may know that you have eternal life."

I know. Do you?

Do you have the Son of God? Why not ask Him to come into your life as Savior and Lord right now?

Jesus; do you know Him today? Please, don't turn Him away.

America and her God

See this short slide show. I think it will inspire you.

The Resurrection of Jesus

Are you a doubting Thomas? Don't believe in the resurrection of Jesus Christ?

James Cameron (director of the film “Titanic”) and Simcha Jacobovici had announced that they have found the bones of Jesus! At their news conference, they promoted their Discovery Channel special “The Lost Tomb of Jesus” that was televised on March 4th. They also promoted the book by Simcha Jacobovici and Charles Pellegrino entitled The Jesus Family Tomb: The Discovery, the Investigation, and the Evidence That Could Change History released by Harper-Collins.

If you want to see the real evidence of the resurrection of the Jesus of the Bible then you ought to see this blog, Confident Christianity.

painting: Caravaggio's Doubting Thomas

Genesis 1:1-2 and the Gap Theory

The Bible is not a science book but as I have claimed earlier in this blog, where it touches on proven science it is accurate and reliable. None of us know all of the mechanisms God used to create the universe and so believers generally view the creation from three standpoints. Each view makes valid points and each will determine how the creation event in the Bible will be interpreted. It should be remembered that all three are theories and should be acknowledged as such and not used to ostracize or disfellowship other believers. All three view the creation story as recorded in the WHOLE Bible as divinely inspired.

There are several theories of Creationism among Christian believers. The Three Most Common Biblical Creation Models are the “Gap” theory; the second is referred to as the “Age-Day” theory. The third theory is the "Literalist" in which the original universe, including earth were created in six literal days about 6011 years ago (4004 BC).

1. “Gap” or “Reconstruction” Theory. This theory suggests the condition in Genesis 1:2 is the result of a cataclysmic judgment involving the fall of the angels; that there was a primeval creation, complete in itself, in which the Angels were created as well as an inhabited pre-Adamite earth. After an unknown interval of time between Genesis 1:1 and Genesis 1:2 there was a rebellion by Lucifer who was cast out onto the earth (Isaiah 14:12-14; Luke 10:18) perpetuating a catastrophe creating the conditions of Gen. 1:2. Therefore, the six creative days in the following verses would be the new creation of the earth that had become desolate.

Problem: That death was in the world before Adam sinned.

Solution: Sin (iniquity) was found in Lucifer. (Isaiah 14:16-17; Ezekiel 28:11-19)

At some point (in Genesis 1:2) the Holy Spirit began brooding over the waters covering the earth as God began to create the earth as a home for man and the life we see about us. When Adam disobeyed God and obeyed Lucifer, he forfeited all that God had given him to Lucifer, and that old serpent became ‘god of this world’ (2 Corinthians 4:4) over which he has no right (Psalm 24:1; 1 Corinthians 10:26) and to whom Adam by nature became servant.

2. “Age-Day Theory”

This theory regards the first two verses of Genesis as that of the original creation in its raw state as from nothing, while the remaining part of the chapter is a formation and organization of the matter thus created. Genesis 1:1-2 is merely an introductory statement of fact, with each creative day being an indeterminate period or era of time. This is based on verses like 2 Peter3:8 which equates a thousand years as a day. These “era’s” are the geologic era’s t hat fit into modern scientific theories. How long it was, we do not know but ample space is given to all the requisitions of geology.

Problems:

(1). The Scripture says that each day of the creation week is “an evening and a morning.”

(2). The geologic era’s of science do not correspond to the same order that life appears in the scripture.

(3). Plant life was made before there was sunshine. If the age-day theory is correct then plant life survived an era or at least a thousand years without it.

Solution: none

24 Hour / Six Day Creation Theory (Young Earth Creationism)

This theory says that the entire universe was created by God in 6 equal twenty four hour days about 6,011 years ago according to Ussher's Chronology.

Genesis 1:1-2 is an introductory statement showing the earth at the outset, like a lump of clay that God began to squeeze and form into the earth we live in today. Proponents of this theory often say that it is futile to question creation for God said “Where were you when I laid the foundations of the earth?” (Job 38:4) and “the secret things belong to the Lord our God, but those things which are revealed belong to us and to our children forever, that we may do all the words of this law.” (Deuteronomy 29:29)

Problem: The stars & ‘sons of God’ were witness to the creation of the earth. (Job 38:6, 7) How can this be if the stars weren’t created until the fourth day? See other problems.

I believe in both an old and young earth interpretation. God created it from one that was destroyed. This does not conflict with the Bible at all as some have claimed.

(Definitions are derived primarily from Strong's Concordance)

Genesis 1:1. “In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.”
In the beginning…
In the beginning God -- Here the Hebrew word for God is 'el-o-heem' which is a plural form
of; 1) "gods" in the ordinary sense; but specifically used (in the plural thus, especially with the article) of the "supreme God;" occasionally applied by way of deference to magistrates; and sometimes as a superlative:—angels, exceeding, God (gods) (-dess, -ly), (very) great, judges, mighty.

"In the beginning God created…" Here "created" comes from a Hebrew word pronounced "baw-raw'"

'Baw-raw'' is a primitive root; (absolutely) to create; (qualified) to cut down (a wood), select, feed (as formative processes):—choose, create (creator), cut down, dispatch, do, make (fat).

"In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth..." Earth here is the same word as 'earth' which is defined as 'dry land' in verse

Genesis 1:10: "And God called the dry land Earth"

The gap in the creation story is right here, between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2 for it says-

Genesis 1:2. “And the earth [**was] without form and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.”

The words I've italicized are terms used in the Bible to commonly describe the aftermath of divine Judgement, not the creation. To say that this a state of the creative act is to contradict every specific creative act of the God who creates all things orderly and whom Isaiah says clearly (Isaiah 45:18) "God himself that formed the earth and made it; he hath established it, he created it not in vain, he formed it to be inhabited: I am the LORD; and there is none else."

The word vain is from the Heb. word pronounced toòhuò or to'-hoo. Same word used in Genesis 1:2:

And the earth was without form ( toòhuò or to'-hoo) which comes from an unused root meaning to lie waste; a desolation (of surface), that is, desert; figuratively a worthless thing; adverbially in vain:—confusion, empty place, without form, nothing, nought, vain, vanity, waste, wilderness and void (boòhuò or bo'-hoo) comes from an unused root meaning to be empty; a vacuity, that is, (superficially) an undistinguishable ruin:—emptiness, void.

and darkness (khoh-shek') was upon the face of the deep.
From the dark; hence (literally) darkness; figuratively misery, destruction, death, ignorance, sorrow, wickedness:—dark (-ness), night, obscurity.

How do Young Earth Creationists (YEC) reconcile the state of the earth in Genesis 1:2 to a God who Creates all things good?

Now if God said He didn't create the earth in vain, (toòhuò or to'-hoo) who are we to say that He did? This is a state that the earth came into.

______________________________________
**Also translated “became” in the footnote of the Torah.

Biblical Truth or Contradictions

I encountered a man who threw away his beliefs in the Bible citing as an example the difference between Matthew and Mark's Gospels with regard to the healing of the blind beggars of Jericho.

How can the differences between Mark and Matthew’s account of the healing of the blind both be true in every detail?

The story of the healing of the blind beggars is one of the stories that skeptics use to discount the accuracy and inspiration of the Bible itself. Here are the two accounts:

Mark 10:46-52 KJV

46 And they came to Jericho: and as he went out of Jericho with his disciples and a great number of people, blind Bartimaeus, the son of Timaeus, sat by the highway side begging.
47 And when he heard that it was Jesus of Nazareth, he began to cry out, and say, Jesus, thou son of David, have mercy on me.
48 And many charged him that he should hold his peace: but he cried the more a great deal, Thou son of David, have mercy on me.
49 And Jesus stood still, and commanded him to be called. And they call the blind man, saying unto him, Be of good comfort, rise; he calleth thee.
50 And he, casting away his garment, rose, and came to Jesus.
51 And Jesus answered and said unto him, What wilt thou that I should do unto thee? The blind man said unto him, Lord, that I might receive my sight.
52 And Jesus said unto him, Go thy way; thy faith hath made thee whole. And immediately he received his sight, and followed Jesus in the way.

Matthew 20:29-34 KJV

29 And as they departed from Jericho, a great multitude followed him.
30 And, behold, two blind men sitting by the way side, when they heard that Jesus passed by, cried out, saying, Have mercy on us, O Lord, thou son of David.
31 And the multitude rebuked them, because they should hold their peace: but they cried the more, saying, Have mercy on us, O Lord, thou son of David.
32 And Jesus stood still, and called them, and said, What will ye that I shall do unto you?
33 They say unto him, Lord, that our eyes may be opened.
34 So Jesus had compassion on them, and touched their eyes: and immediately their eyes received sight, and they followed him.
____________________
Both accounts identify the proximity of the city of Jericho as the site where the miracle took place.
Both accounts record the presence of a large crowd accompanying Jesus and his disciples.
Matthew records that there were two blind men while Mark records only one, and names him as Bartimaeus.
Both accounts say the blind had been sitting by the roadside, begging.
Both accounts say that the blind cried aloud for mercy from Jesus, son of David.
Both accounts tell of the crowds attempt to shut the(m) up.
Both accounts say that Jesus responded with an invitation.
Both accounts say that Jesus asked what the desire of him was.
Both accounts record the same answer to Jesus’ question.
Both accounts record the miracle of the healing of the blind. Matthew adds a detail that Jesus touched the blind while Mark omits the small detail. This is not a problem even for the skeptics.
Mark records Jesus’ dismissal of Bartimaeus by saying, “Go thy way…” Matthew omits that detail—again this is not a problem for both accounts declare that the blind who were healed followed Jesus.
____________________
Out of all of the information provided in both gospels, there is only one point of difference, yet some will toss out the plenary inspiration of scripture in total because of this. Strain at a gnat and swallow a camel! But is this the infallible Word of God or not? If so, how does Mark give us the name of one blind man when Matthew tells us of two unnamed blind men?
____________________

My answer:

Matthew was there. As he walked along with Jesus that day he witnessed two blind beggars crying out to Jesus. Matthew's eyewitness is not in question. The crowd tried to silence the blind beggars but the blind cried out all the more. Upon hearing them, Jesus stopped and called for them. (Isn't that just like Jesus!) He asked them what they wanted most and they answered, 'that we might see!' He touched their eyes and their blindness was gone, and they could see! Jesus gave them leave to go their own way but they decided to accompany Jesus with the disciples as did many others. This is even more evident later when the disciples were to pick a replacement for Judas Iscariot (Acts 1:21-23), one who followed along with the disciples throughout Jesus' entire earthly ministry, (from the beginning) and there were at least two men who fit that catagory.

Mark (John Mark) wasn’t a witness on the day that the miracle of the healing of the blind took place.
It is commonly said that Mark’s home was the site of the last supper and a gathering place on the day of Pentecost and a place where prayer meetings were held (Acts 12:12) in the early days of the church. Mark happened to be the nephew of Barnabas (Colossians 4:10) and like a son to Peter (1 Peter 5:15) he traveled with Paul who criticised Marks immaturity early on but later desired and received Marks assistance.

The first appearance of Mark in the Bible is believed to be an autobiographical description of himself at the Garden of Gethsemane:

Mark 14:50-52

50 And they all forsook him, and fled.
51 And there followed him a certain young man, having a linen cloth cast about his naked body; and the young men laid hold on him:
52 And he left the linen cloth, and fled from them naked.

The fact that only Mark records this seemingly insignificant incident specifying a particular ‘certain young man’ makes it clear that this curious young man (Mark) was eyewitness if not the participant to whom he referred.
In the days that followed Jesus’ resurrection Mark became familiar with the men who followed Jesus, among whom was Bartimaeus, the blind beggar of Jericho. Listening intently to their stories and testimonies of the miracles of Jesus, Mark wrote them in his gospel account.

Mark’s gospel identifies the story as the healing of blind Bartimaeus, an apparent result of his hearing Bartimaeus’ own testimony from the former blind man's own mouth. Who the second blind man was or when he stopped following Jesus we aren’t told, but they were released by Jesus to go their own way. His name is unknown.

When observed in this likely scenario, there is absolutely no disagreement whatsoever in the stories recounted in the two gospels. The accounts themselves prove the truth of the miracle of the blind beggars of Jericho and the honesty, integrity and credibility of the Bible.

Have The Bones of Jesus Been Found?

There has been a lot of controversy over the latest offering of Simcha Jacobovici's latest claim that the family tomb of Jesus has been uncovered. Posing as an archaeologist after the order of 'Indiana Jones' for the History channel, Mr. Jacobovici has already been discredited for his outlandish claims about the Bible. I have re-printed here at the behest of AFV a letter of rebuttal to the documentary.
***********************

Tales from the Crypt
Do we have the bones of Jesus?
by Kerby Anderson


The last week in February started out with an incredible announcement. James Cameron (director of the film “Titanic”) and Simcha Jacobovici announced that they have found the bones of Jesus! At their news conference, they promoted their Discovery Channel special “The Lost Tomb of Jesus” that will air on March 4th and also promoted the book by Simcha Jacobovici and Charles Pellegrino entitled The Jesus Family Tomb: The Discovery, the Investigation, and the Evidence That Could Change History released by Harper-Collins.

The foundational claim is that they have discovered the family tomb of Jesus Christ. But is this really the tomb of Jesus or his family? There are many good reasons to believe this tomb has no relationship at all to Jesus and his family. Many are asking what to think about these claims. Therefore, I put together a quick two-page summary of some of the criticisms and concerns that surfaced in the first few hours after the announcement. Before we look at those criticisms, let’s first review the history of this tomb.

We have known about this tomb since it was discovered in 1980. Back then,
Israeli construction workers were digging the foundation for a new building in a Jerusalem suburb. Their digging revealed a cave with ten limestone ossuaries. Archeologists removed the limestone caskets for examination.

When they were able to decipher the names on the ten ossuaries, they found: Jesua, son of Joseph, Mary, Mary, Mathew, Jofa and Judah, son of Jesua. At the time, one of Israel’s most prominent archeologists (Professor Amos Kloner) didn’t associate the crypt with Jesus. He rightly argued that the father of Jesus was a humble carpenter who couldn’t afford a luxury crypt for his family. Moreover, the names on the crypt were common Jewish names.

All of this hasn’t stopped James Cameron and Simcha Jacobovici from promoting the tomb as the family tomb of Jesus. They claim to have evidence (through DNA tests, archeological evidence, and Biblical studies) to prove that the ten ossuaries belong to Jesus and his family. They also argue that Jesus and Mary Magdalene might have produced a son named Judah. However, a number of biblical scholars say this is a really just an old story now being recycled in an effort to create a media phenomenon that will sell books and guarantee a large audience for the television special.

First, does it really make sense that this would be the family tomb of Jesus? Remember that Jesus was in Jerusalem as a pilgrim and was not a resident of the city. How would his family be able to buy this tomb? As we already mentioned, Joseph (who probably was not alive and died in Galilee) and his family did not have the funds to buy such an elaborate burial site. Moreover, they were from out of town and would need time to find this tomb location. To accept this theory, one has to believe they stole the body of Jesus and moved it to this tomb in a suburb of Jerusalem all within about a day’s time.

Second, if this is the family tomb of Jesus and his family, why is Jesus referred to as the “son of Joseph?” As far as we can determine from history, the earliest followers of Jesus never called Jesus the “son of Joseph.” The record of history is that it was only outsiders who mistakenly called him that.

Third, if this is the family tomb of Jesus, why do we have the name of Matthew listed with the rest of the family? If this is the Matthew that traveled with Jesus, then he certainly was not a family member. And you would have to wonder why James (who remained in Jerusalem) would allow these inscriptions as well as allow the family to move the body from Jerusalem to this tomb and perpetrate a hoax that Jesus bodily rose from the grave. Also, the fourth-century church historian Eusebius writes that the body of James (the half-brother of Jesus) was buried alone near the temple mount and that his tomb was visited in the early centuries.

Fourth, there is the problem with the common names on the tombs. Researchers have cataloged the most common names at the time. The ten most common were: Simon/Simeon, Joseph, Eleazar, Judah, John/Yohanan, Jesus, Hananiah, Jonathan, Matthew, and Manaen/Menahem. These are some of the names found on the ossuaries and thus suggest that the tomb belonged to someone other than Jesus of Nazareth and his family. In fact, the name Jesus appears in 98 other tombs and on 21 other ossuaries.

Finally there is the question of the DNA testing. Apparently there is evidence that shows that the DNA from the woman (in what they say is the Mary Magdalene ossuary) and the DNA from the so-called Jesus ossuary does not match. So they argue that they were not relatives and thus must have been married.

But does the DNA evidence really prove that? It does not prove she is his wife. In fact, we really don’t even know who in the ossuaries are related to the other. Moreover, we do not have an independent DNA control sample to compare these findings with. At best, the DNA evidence shows that some of these people are related and some are not.

All of this looks like sensationalism from Simcha Jacobovici (who has a reputation as an Indiana-Jones type) and James Cameron (the director of the “Titanic.”). The publicity is certain to sell books and draw a television audience, but it is not good history or archaeology.

From http://emporium.turnpike.net/C/cs/mainpts.htm


So just what is creationism trying to say?
Creationism is not "against" modern science! In fact, the Biblical mandate to "subdue" the earth (Genesis 1:28) requires us to understand it, which is what science is all about. "Creation Science" is simply the practice of science with the assumption and acknowledgement that there is a creator God, versus the now standard operating assumption of naturalism (that nature is "all there is").

No one, including creation scientists, disputes that so-called "micro-evolution" (variation within a type of organism) caused by natural selection occurs and may be responsible for the large number of species found within a type. Almost all touted evidences for evolution are of this category (like Darwin's finches, the "peppered moth", or bacteria that become resistant to antibiotics). However, it is important to note that "micro-evolution" is a misnomer, as it implies that "a little" evolution is taking place. In actuality, NO evolution is taking place, as no increase in complexity (such as the development of a new organ) is being generated, but merely the emphasis of some already present traits over others.

Large scale change of one type of organism into another, so-called "macro-evolution", is beyond the ability of mutation coupled with natural selection to produce. Evolutionists acknowledge this is a "research issue". Even non-creation scientists (such as Denton and Behe) have written books giving the hard scientific facts that document why this is impossible.

The "geologic column", which is cited as physical evidence of evolution occurring in the past, is better explained as the result of a devastating global flood which happened about 5,000 years ago, as described in the Bible. Even evolutionists acknowledge that the fossil record is one of "fully-formed abrupt appearance" and "stasis" (that is, no change over time).

The belief that the atoms of a "Big Bang" eventually produced people ALL BY THEMSELVES (that is, without any intelligent guidance) is contrary to the well-proven Second Law of Thermodynamics, and the fundamentals of Information Theory. The universe is known to be "running down" yet evolution postulates it is "building up". Atoms to people evolution is much more a "religious belief" than a scientific fact.

There is no reason not to believe that God created our universe, earth, plants, animals, and people just as described in the book of Genesis!

[This article shows no copyright and is printed in it's entirety without permission from Creation Science]

photo of Death Valley basin after rains
by R. Hoeppner

What About 'Those' Bible Contradictions?

Does the Bible contradict itself? You know, like the contradiction between Acts 9:7 and Acts 22:9 concerning the conversion of Saul. There are a number of good websites that deal with this and one that I would recommend is CRTA. Check it out for yourself. Here is a place to go for answers to the well worn atheist's arguments against God, the Bible and Christianity.

Darwinism Delusion Exposed

Read this interesting article by Professor Emeritus of Biology
Kazmer Ujvarosy
Kazmer Ujvarosy is the founder of Frontline Science, an independent think tank, based in San Francisco.
He is dedicated to the analysis of complex problems, and the development of realistic, concrete proposals on issues of global concern. His stance is independent, interdisciplinary, with an analytical rigor, and a view to the future.
He is uniquely qualified to help you understand what makes scientific sense, and what does not, based on cause-and-effect and systems principles.

author's web site
view author's other articles
Join this author's mailing list Your Name:E-mail Address:
Kazmer Ujvarosy

Intelligent Design - Peer Reviewed Publications

As much as some scientists would like to eliminate the concept of an Intelligent Designer from the discussion of origins, there is a growing number of scientists who are willing to embrace ID as an alternate and competing theory to Darwinistic evolution.

At personal financial and professional risk, some of these brave scientists have dared keep an open mind to the possibility of Intelligent Design showing that there is easily as much evidence to support that theory as there is the various evolution theories.

Allegations that proponents of Intelligent Design have no peer-reviewed scientific theories are a deliberate distortion of the facts. Inspite of attempts that have been made to marginalize and even censure scientists who support ID, they've been able to credibly articulate ID in peer-reviewed publications.
Organizations and scientists that support ID, such as the Discovery Institute present Peer-Reviewed & Peer-Edited Scientific Publications Supporting the Theory of Intelligent Design.

A few of these examples are:

** DNA and the Origin of Life: The origin of biomolecular machines, in Darwinism, Design, & Public Education (Michigan State University Press, 2003), Pp. 287-302;

**Reinstating design within science, in Darwinism, Design, & Public Education (Michigan State University Press, 2003), Pp. 403-418.

**The Origin of Biological Information and the Higher Taxonomic Categories”

**Dynamical Genetics

**“Do Centrioles Generate a Polar Ejection Force?,"

** Genetic Analysis of Coordinate Flagellar and Type III Regulatory Circuits,”

A few of the many publications that support ID.

**The Design Inference: Eliminating Chance through Small Probabilities (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998).

**Michael Behe, Darwin’s Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution (The Free Press, 1996).

**The Mystery of Life’s Origin: Reassessing Current Theories (Philosophical Library, 1984, Lewis & Stanley, 4th ed., 1992).

**Guillermo Gonzalez and Jay W. Richards, The Privileged Planet: How Our Place in the Cosmos is Designed for Discovery (Regnery Publishing, 2004).

While I would like to see ID presented alongside Evolution taught as a theory of Origins, I have to admit that such teaching would not necessarily support my particular faith. Many ID scientists have a very different concept of the Designer than my Christian-Trinitarian idea of a personal God. Of course I know I'm right. ***smile***

Oh, by the way did you know that there is recent evidence to support the crossing of the Red Sea and the drowning of Pharaoh's army and the real Mt. Sinai?

Hawaii Again!

Hawaii is the jewell of the Pacific Ocean. There are so many things to see and do it would take a lifetime. I keep up with the news from Hawaii daily.
We are no strangers to Hawaii (having been there four times last year alone) and yet we are. Each time

we go intending to just relax we end up filling our time with activities from dawn to sunset and beyond. We are looking forward to our next visit with our youngest son and his wife. The question is, will we be ready? Right now my tan has faded completely and I'm still trying to get in shape for those famous hikes Jason like to take! He riminds me of Indiana Jones. Don't believe it? Check the picture of him taken on Maui last year. The two Islands we haven't visited yet are the Big Island and Molokai. We'll have to put those on hold for a while. It's been some

time since we were on Kauai so I'm sure it's changed since then. I will try to keep up with this blog on our trip. Here are more pictures.

This past December all the family went and we stayed at a condo in Turtle Bay. Living so far apart it was a rare treat to all be together. It was especially nice for our family Christmas. Besides the weather was cold on the mainland. Mid to upper 70's there. (All pictures on this post were taken by me or my family members).

Here's A Backlog of My Previous Blogs from the Archive

Blog Archive

The Science in the Bible
Discrimination Against ID Proponents
A Thought about God -- from C. S. Lewis

Will Israel Ever Be Exiled Again?
Patriot's Thoughts of God, America and the Bible
Is Darwinian Evolution Being Over-hyped?
The Scopes Monkey Trial -- and Hollywood
First Prophecy and Fulfillment Concerning Christ
Saturn: It's Rings and Mythology
The Real Story: Evolutions Billions of Missing Lin...
Scientific Evidence for the Existence of God
St. Luke Revisited
The Gospel of St. Luke
Natural Law and Miracles
Four Great American Presidents
Christians - By Maya Angelou
Pascal's Wager
Evidence is the Tip of the Iceberg
The Simple Cell?
John's Vision of a Meteor Strike
Ben Franklin Speaks
King Sargon
Could This be a Biblical Description of a Helicopt...
Acknowledgement of God in the States of America
How Enduring is the Word of God?
Abortion: The Real Agenda
Why Abiogenesis (Life from Non-Life) Cannot Occur
Bible Description of a Nuclear Blast
What Darwinism Has Done for the Aboriginals
Atheism Defined
George Washington's 1789 Thanksgiving Proclamation...
Sir Isaac Newton
Shotgun Approach?
Old Testament Prophecies Fulfilled By Christ

The Science in the Bible

The Bible is not a science book but where it speaks to science it is accurate.

Today there is a popular conception being promoted by secularists that the Bible is anti-scientific and Christians are uneducated. Is that a fair statement? Are Christians unenlightened? Often cited are the actions of the medieval Roman Church with it's geocentric beliefs. This prime example that is most often presented by skeptics will point out that the Roman Catholic Church officials held to Aristotle’s geocentric philosophy (that the planets and sun itself revolved around a stationary earth). Included in this argument is how the Roman Catholic Church persecuted the astronomer's Galileo (who was imprisoned) and Bruno (who was burned at the stake). One of the fallacies of this argument is that it has nothing to do with the Bible, or Christians at all since Bruno was said to have been executed for other heresy. Galileo himself was a devout Christian. Galileo in his letter to Castelli on Dec. 13, 1613, observed that "scripture deals with natural matters in such a cursory and allusive way that it looks as though it wanted to remind us that its business . . . is about the soul and that, as concerns Nature, it is willing to adjust its language to the simple minds of the people." ** The Roman Catholic Church later apologized for the atrocities but it's detractors gladly confuse the superstitions of the medieval church with the Bible, which in my opinion, is intellectual hypocrisy on their part.

Galileo 1564 - 1642

When Galileo observed the Milky Way with his primitive telescope, he realized that it was a mass of stars “so numerous as to be almost beyond belief.” Astrologers at the time believed there were between 3000-5000 stars. Going back three thousand years before Galileo the Bible says in the book of Genesis that the stars are as numerous as the sand of the sea shore. (Genesis 22:17). And with regard to the earth? Let's look at one of the oldest books of the Bible, Job. Job was written over a thousand years before Aristotle. Consider Job's astounding observation:
“He...(God)...hangeth the earth upon nothing.” – Job 26:7

_____________
** Giorgio de Santillana, The Crime of Galileo (Alexandria, Va.: Time-Life Books, 1955), p. 39.


photo "Super Bubble" courtesy of NASA

Discrimination Against ID Proponents

The following article was taken from the Wall Street Journal (see acknowledgement at the bottom of the article). It is not uncommon for Scientists who don't march in lockstep with their Darwinist counterparts to be marginalized. They are a brave sort who risk the loss of money (grants), defamation and ridicule for research that is open to a theory of intelligent design without promoting a religion.

The Branding of a Heretic

Are religious scientists unwelcome at the Smithsonian?

BY DAVID KLINGHOFFER
Friday, January 28, 2005 12:01 a.m.

The question of whether Intelligent Design (ID) may be presented to public-school students alongside neo-Darwinian evolution has roiled parents and teachers in various communities lately. Whether ID may be presented to adult scientific professionals is another question altogether but also controversial. It is now roiling the government-supported Smithsonian Institution, where one scientist has had his career all but ruined over it.
The scientist is Richard Sternberg, a research associate at the Smithsonian's National Museum of Natural History in Washington. The holder of two Ph.D.s in biology, Mr. Sternberg was until recently the managing editor of a nominally independent journal published at the museum, Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington, where he exercised final editorial authority. The August issue included typical articles on taxonomical topics--e.g., on a new species of hermit crab. It also included an atypical article, "The Origin of Biological Information and the Higher Taxonomic Categories." Here was trouble.

The piece happened to be the first peer-reviewed article to appear in a technical biology journal laying out the evidential case for Intelligent Design. According to ID theory, certain features of living organisms--such as the miniature machines and complex circuits within cells--are better explained by an unspecified designing intelligence than by an undirected natural process like random mutation and natural selection.

Mr. Sternberg's editorship has since expired, as it was scheduled to anyway, but his future as a researcher is in jeopardy--and that he had not planned on at all. He has been penalized by the museum's Department of Zoology, his religious and political beliefs questioned. He now rests his hope for vindication on his complaint filed with the U.S. Office of Special Counsel (OSC) that he was subjected to discrimination on the basis of perceived religious beliefs. A museum spokesman confirms that the OSC is investigating. Says Mr. Sternberg: "I'm spending my time trying to figure out how to salvage a scientific career."

The offending review-essay was written by Stephen Meyer, who holds a Cambridge University doctorate in the philosophy of biology. In the article, he cites biologists and paleontologists critical of certain aspects of Darwinism--mainstream scientists at places like the University of Chicago, Yale, Cambridge and Oxford. Mr. Meyer gathers the threads of their comments to make his own case. He points, for example, to the Cambrian explosion 530 million years ago, when between 19 and 34 animal phyla (body plans) sprang into existence. He argues that, relying on only the Darwinian mechanism, there was not enough time for the necessary genetic "information" to be generated. ID, he believes, offers a better explanation.
Whatever the article's ultimate merits--beyond the judgment of a layman--it was indeed subject to peer review, the gold standard of academic science. Not that such review saved Mr. Sternberg from infamy. Soon after the article appeared, Hans Sues--the museum's No. 2 senior scientist--denounced it to colleagues and then sent a widely forwarded e-mail calling it "unscientific garbage."

Meanwhile, the chairman of the Zoology Department, Jonathan Coddington, called Mr. Sternberg's supervisor. According to Mr. Sternberg's OSC complaint: "First, he asked whether Sternberg was a religious fundamentalist. She told him no. Coddington then asked if Sternberg was affiliated with or belonged to any religious organization. . . . He then asked where Sternberg stood politically; . . . he asked, 'Is he a right-winger? What is his political affiliation?' " The supervisor (who did not return my phone messages) recounted the conversation to Mr. Sternberg, who also quotes her observing: "There are Christians here, but they keep their heads down."

Worries about being perceived as "religious" spread at the museum. One curator, who generally confirmed the conversation when I spoke to him, told Mr. Sternberg about a gathering where he offered a Jewish prayer for a colleague about to retire. The curator fretted: "So now they're going to think that I'm a religious person, and that's not a good thing at the museum."

In October, as the OSC complaint recounts, Mr. Coddington told Mr. Sternberg to give up his office and turn in his keys to the departmental floor, thus denying him access to the specimen collections he needs. Mr. Sternberg was also assigned to the close oversight of a curator with whom he had professional disagreements unrelated to evolution. "I'm going to be straightforward with you," said Mr. Coddington, according to the complaint. "Yes, you are being singled out." Neither Mr. Coddington nor Mr. Sues returned repeated phone messages asking for their version of events.
Mr. Sternberg begged a friendly curator for alternative research space, and he still works at the museum. But many colleagues now ignore him when he greets them in the hall, and his office sits empty as "unclaimed space." Old colleagues at other institutions now refuse to work with him on publication projects, citing the Meyer episode. The Biological Society of Washington released a vaguely ecclesiastical statement regretting its association with the article. It did not address its arguments but denied its orthodoxy, citing a resolution of the American Association for the Advancement of Science that defined ID as, by its very nature, unscientific.

It may or may not be, but surely the matter can be debated on scientific grounds, responded to with argument instead of invective and stigma. Note the circularity: Critics of ID have long argued that the theory was unscientific because it had not been put forward in a peer-reviewed scientific journal. Now that it has, they argue that it shouldn't have been because it's unscientific. They banish certain ideas from certain venues as if by holy writ, and brand heretics too. In any case, the heretic here is Mr. Meyer, a fellow at Seattle's Discovery Institute, not Mr. Sternberg, who isn't himself an advocate of Intelligent Design.

According to the OSC complaint, one museum specialist chided him by saying: "I think you are a religiously motivated person and you have dragged down the Proceedings because of your religiously motivated agenda." Definitely not, says Mr. Sternberg. He is a Catholic who attends Mass but notes: "I would call myself a believer with a lot of questions, about everything. I'm in the postmodern predicament."

Intelligent Design, in any event, is hardly a made-to-order prop for any particular religion. When the British atheist philosopher Antony Flew made news this winter by declaring that he had become a deist--a believer in an unbiblical "god of the philosophers" who takes no notice of our lives--he pointed to the plausibility of ID theory.
Darwinism, by contrast, is an essential ingredient in secularism, that aggressive, quasi-religious faith without a deity. The Sternberg case seems, in many ways, an instance of one religion persecuting a rival, demanding loyalty from anyone who enters one of its churches--like the National Museum of Natural History.

Mr. Klinghoffer, a columnist for the Jewish Forward, is the author of "Why the Jews Rejected Jesus," to be published by Doubleday in March.

Used with permission from OpinionJournal.com, a web site from Dow Jones & Company, Inc. (Links added).

A Thought about God -- from C. S. Lewis

My argument against God was that the universe seemed so cruel and unjust. But how had I got this idea of just and unjust? A man does not call a line crooked unless he has some idea of a straight line. What was I comparing this universe with when I called it unjust? If the whole show was bad and senseless from A to Z, so to speak, why did I, who was supposed to be part of the show, find myself in such violent reaction against it? A man feels wet when he falls into water, because man is not a water animal: a fish would not feel wet. Of course, I could have given up my idea of justice by saying that it was nothing but a private idea of my own. But if I did that, then my argument against God collapsed too--for the argument depended on saying that the world was really unjust, not simply that it did not happen to please my private fancies. Thus in the very act of trying to prove that God did not exist--in other words, that the whole of reality was senseless--I found I was forced to assume that one part of reality--namely my idea of justice--was full of sense. Consequently atheism turns out to be too simple. If the whole universe has no meaning, we should never have found out that it has no meaning: just as, if there were no light in the universe and therefore no creatures with eyes, we should never know it was dark. Dark would be without meaning.--C.S. Lewis